Yeah, they skip skin color/race, but never, ever fail to mention to mention the age of some quoted random person.
John Doe, 47, saw the gunman drive away…
:rolleyes:
That’s easy for you to say when you don’t have to keep people reading your paper. 
I can see both sides of the “is it useful info” question (do police blotter items for things like stolen wallets ever solve crimes? I’m skeptical), but when information doesn’t seem useful and there seems even a remote possibility of inflaming your readership, I can see why people wouldn’t use it. I usually include it.
There actually IS a reason for that, although doesn’t matter much in the situation you gave. It’s to prevent that John Doe from being mistaken for other John Does.
I’m a reporter, although I don’t often write about crime. My rule of thumb has always been to include race when it’s part of a thorough description (height, weight, clothing, etc.) that might help people identify the suspect but leave it out when it would do nothing but tell people a black/asian/white person committed this crime.
Hmmm, I don’t know anything about “skin color”, but it always seemed to me like they only report African-American (or Black*), but not Caucasian or White*, as if White* is the natural assumption. “Everyone’s White* unless specifically mentioned otherwise.”
As a result, I think it makes non-Whites* stand out. If every criminal was described as “A White* man/woman did it” that would make a different impression.
And if someone’s a different ethnicity, it seems like that’s generally noted.
- Capitalized? Not capitalized? I dunno.
It could be that the robber was caught because they were seen clearly and recognized, but no one got a good look at the getaway driver, only the car? If they caught the robber, then his description is moot, but any information that could help catch the getaway driver would be pertinent.
Remember that the next time you hear a breaking news report about a “suspected Islamic terror suspsect”.
I knew someone would say this; look, if someone said “be on the lookout for a thief, he’s Muslim”, that info would be near useless. Are you claiming you can spot a Muslim by looking at him? Oh he’s wearing that garb we always see on TV from the Middle East…, okay, so ME Christians wear that garb too. I work with some Muslims, they dress Western, so there goes that.
Clark, as a reporter can you tell us if it is common among any media outlets, to have any kind of guidlines on how reporting is done ?
A couple of added notes on the story …
-
The article moved from the front page into the middle of the section where security camera pictures of the two remaining suspects were printed. They were in fact “people of color”.
-
I say “remaining” … there were originally three and one was killed by the store manager who was legally carrying a concealed weapon. There will be no charges against him.
Not capitalized.
I don’t know that I can shed much light on that. I’ve spent my entire career with one news organization. With us, it’s often a matter of institutional knowledge _ the new guy asks the veteran what to do, the veteran passes along what he was taught and so forth.
I suspect it’s similar elsewhere. Journalists tend not to have the organizational skills or conformist mindset to come up with clear guidelines. Some big outfits, like the New York Times, might put more effort into codifying these issues, but I’d say that’s the exception.
That’s one reason it’s misleading to think about “the media” doing this or that. The media is a bunch of individuals more or less making it up as they go along.
Hope that helps a little.
Yes, that’s the point. If the police are asking for the public to help find the suspect, then yes, they tend to use race as a description. The press has no choice in the matter; they have to use the description they get from the police.
Yes they do. You mean that we can’t use information we don’t get from the police.
Lacking a thorough description, do you mention gender? If you identify a thief as a man (or woman), that casts suspicion on a far larger group of innocent people.
Well, at my newspaper we usually say something like this:
“The suspect is described as male, 6 foot tall, dark-skinned, with a shaved head. He is missing his front three teeth.”
Wheras you would inject “Dark-skinned” for a black person, “light-skinned” for a white person, and “olive-skinned” for asian people. Hispanics are, I believe, described as “medium-toned.” Descriptive words only!
~Tasha
AFAICT, when it comes to crime stories in my local paper, I assume the opposite - the paper doesn’t mention race unless it is a white guy.
Regards,
Shodan
I’ll generally use whatever I get. It’s not much of a comparison, though: I don’t think people are going to get suspicious whenever they see a woman, and with race that might be a legitimate concern.
Seems like kind of an oddball story. I don’t watch local news or read the Globe all that much anymore, but usually when there’s a suspect at large, they’ll report on whatever characteristics are known, like height, weight, build, hairstyle, facial hair, discernable ethnicity, skin tone, tatoos, piercings, you name it. If they have a picture, they show the picture. If they have only a sketch, they show the sketch. The standard seems to be to report whatever can be reported.